I dont understand why the Texas is so oppose the obamacare. this Care is most benefit to Texas. the Texas got 23% percent un-healthy insured. and Texas also got top medical Tech. all over US. If the obamacare care passed the Texas goverment dont have to pay the medicane for poor people(Texas also got huge low income family in the US.)
maybe some republicans afraid the obamacare rule their buisiness in the Texas.
obamacare is good for ur nation to care who need a real help.
Increase the Taxes will be not a lot for regular income family. it just hurt the wealthy.

Constitutional questions enter the political conversation in the United States more than in most countries because our diverse nation is bound by our founding principles, not by blood, race or ethnicity.
Those Republicans who claim we can be so certain of the “original” intentions of the Founders should take note: When then Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton proposed that the federal government establish a Bank of the United States his idea was strongly opposed as unconstitutional by James Madison, his partner in writing both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. If two of the main authors of the US constitution came to such a stark disagreement so quickly, what exactly does “originalism” mean?

This is a good post, Will. I would add a point: that the great weight of precedent was, previously, on the Commerce Clause argument. A possible interpretation of Roberts's action was that he intended not only to knock out that argument but to "substitute" the tax argument, which had no weight of precedent whatsoever. An argument so weakly supported by stare decisis would, perhaps, be easier to eviscerate the next time around, ruining both Constitutional machines of the Left. Just imagine John Roberts as a character in Aladdin, trading new lamps for old.

And being the fairminded person that I am sure you are, I know you would use the same logic and argue just as vigorously that Mitt Romney engaged in dishonest behavior when he said that didn't raise taxes as governor of Massachusetts. (The healthcare law that he signed as Governor has the same sort of "penalty")

Actually I believe you misinterpreted my response. Personally, I think this whole silly game of deciding whether or not someone raised taxes to be folly and a distraction from the real issues.

I was just trying to point out the hypocrisy and partisanship of your statement and give you a chance to demonstrate some objectivity. Your using two different terms to describe the exact same behavior from the two Presidential candidates (one is "dishonest", the other "raised taxes") is IMHO a pretty good example of the childish partisanship that until recently was refreshingly absent from the Economist comments sites.

Obama did not take the honest stance and dissuade the US Solicitor General to not defend the act bearing his signature as a tax?
The plain simple fact is that the federal government tried to defend this (dishonorable) act by hook or by crook and the "crook" bit has stuck now.

Too much legal discussion on this subject,but in simpler terms why not we say that SC has recognised the gridlock in the political process leading to a failure of the government to govern the country in the right direction,and showed a way out which is the right direction. If the future congress wants to repeal this law they have to adhere to this gidelines in framing the new law which will again be contested and subject to SC's directions.

As a Uk
citizen I am astonished. Does this ruling mean or imply that in the United States, drivers are not obliged to buy third party insurance? Who picks up the bills for careless or drunken drivers, or for plain and simple accidentsin which third parties are killed or injured?

This doesn't have anything to do with automobile insurance. In the US, drivers are required (by state, not federal law) to carry liability insurance. But driving is not a right. Some drivers are nevertheless uninsured (or even unlicensed), and when they are liable for damages, they either pay themselves or the cost is passed on to others — the injured parties and their insurance companies.

Polices are issued with an uninsured driver clause which protects you if you get into an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle.

If you have a poor driving record your rates are higher then others and/or you could be denied car insurance.
Car Insurance is regulated by the state.
Car Insurance companies can pull of states if they feel the states requirements are too stringent.

Roberts shrewdly has done a great public relations job for the court whose reputation was headed into the sewer due to Scalia, Thomas, Alioto, Kennedy (often) and Roberts staunch conservative ideology and total lack of pragmatism. Overturning the ACA would have finished the courts reputation after Citizens United and Gore vs Bush as a bunch of political hacks.

What Roberts has done is appease the liberals, strengthen the conservative position on the Commerce Clause and changed the ACA into a Tax that the Republicans can repeal with only 51 votes in the Senate.

I wouldn’t trust Roberts as far as I could throw him. The Republicans crying foul are too stupid to realize the extent of Roberts collusion in their favor.

The Court has not created any NEW power here - Congress ALWAYS had the power tax and therefore had/has the *potential* to reward or penalize certain groups or behaviours through selective taxation. The ACA has been upheld on basis of a power that Congress had, and no new power has been created. For the Court to deny or limit Congress' power to tax would be legislating from the bench. In fact, even the dissenting opinion of Scalia et al, AGREES that Congress has the right to impose the penalty as a tax.

End of the day, voter pressure and universal representation are an effective moderating force on Congress. To say that Congress can enforce any behaviour or regulation it wishes to through selective taxation is sheer hysteria!

Its amazing how much a person's biases affect their rationality - all kinds of motives and consequences are being visited upon the decision. I've read the original opinions (majority and dissenting) and find each of them to be thoughtful and well reasoned from their own perspective (though I thought Justice Ginsburg's support of the commerce clause to be a little weak in its logic). None of them (including Justice Scalia's) are deserving of the kind of hysteria that is being stirred up.

Sorry, but the notion that you can "interpret" a law is absurd. The law explicitly states what the law is - if you do not like the existing law, then you go through the existing legal channels to change the law. The notion of the Constitution as a "living document" was created and is supported by people who know that their view of how society should be is unconstitutional and they know that they do not have enough support to actually amend the Constitution.

Judge Roberts granted the Federal government unlimited power by inventing this new power to create punitive taxes as a way to force people to make certain decisions. You can have a tax if you choose to do something (such as buy a car), but you cannot punish people for NOT doing something (taxing them for not buying a car). Sadly, a simple image on Facebook grasps the implications of this ruling far better than the author of this article:

"Would you like to buy a pack of gum?"
"No, thanks."
"That'll be $2.25 in tax, then."

First, if you spend any significant amount of time reading statutes, ordinances, and constitutions, you will see that many of them are quite vague. Generally law makers don't want to take the time to write the law in explicit detail so as to cover every possible situation, instead they use general language which is open to interpretation.

Second, the federal government has long had the power to impose taxes to incentivize individual behavior. The idea that this power is unlimited ingores the political reality that most Americans don't like taxes and so it will be much harder for Congress to pass similar laws without everyone calling them out for raising taxes. Calm down sir.

Unfortunately, the Federal government always had the power to create punitive or other taxes. Even the dissenting judges did not debate this. The constitution does not define limits on the Congress' power to tax. This power is only moderated by two things:

1. The whims and ideologies of the lawmakers of the time
2. The fear of voter backlash against excessive / absurd taxation

Justice Roberts has invented no new power here.

The only place where he can be accused of being "inventive" is in assuming that since Congress approved the penalty in the first place, they would not care whether it was labelled a "penalty" or a "tax". The legal reasons for and against this position are equally compelling and what side a person favours depends more on their ideological biases than on logic.

No, they clarified what it meant or reviewing a law against the Constitution - the modern (since the 1930's, possibly earlier) "interpretation" is about creating new meanings instead of saying "This is what the Constitution states and your law doesn't meet the criteria".

If you're going to allow a handful of people appointed by partisan politicians the ability to "interpret" the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then there's no point in having a Constitution because it is meaningless.

If it proves true that Justice Roberts was the principal author of both the majority opinion and much of the dissent, then I find this a hopeful sign. One of the most difficult things is to examine an initial reaction (gut feeling) and conclude that you were wrong. The smarter and more experienced you are, the more facile your rationalization becomes. When you get good at lying to yourself, lying to others becomes trivial. It is to be hoped that at least some of the Justices retain the personally unpleasant virtue of humility.

The law said 'penalty'. It did not say 'tax'. Roberts made it into a tax, essentially rewriting the law, yet again crossing the line between interpreting law and legislating from the bench. The distinction between 'penalty' and 'tax' could be made by any seventh grader, but apparently not the Chief Justice.

Of course he did know, and chose to try and split hairs in order to avoid riling 'liberal' Americans, who made no bones about the hell they intended to raise if Obamacare was struck down. For that he has lost my respect and I will now lump him in with the other fleabag leftists on the Court. I only hope the right in time makes him realize the left wasn't what he really needed to fear.

As I wrote in a different blog, but related to this legislation, all this finding does is prove that lawyers will parse words as they see fit, in order to make certain the government can have its cake and eat it too, while requiring the hoi polloi to foot the bill.

Some comments in here suggest a view that the Constitution has plain, easily-ascertainable meanings. I intend to shatter this worldview.

-Many of the Framers had sharp disagreements before, during, and after drafting as to what some sections of the Constitution meant, making it dubious that any specific meaning could be an objectively described as "correct".
-Many sections were left intentionally vague to give future generations to opportunity to hack out what it should say (just like we're doing right now! Yay!). Such an exercise obvious precludes plain, easy meanings.
-Other sections were intended by some founders to be embodiments of grand principals, not absolute laws, even if framed that way. On its face, the 1st Amendment tolerates no limitations on free speech, yet some signatories' personal writings made it clear that they did not share this belief. Clearly, then, the intent was not that all sections be interpreted solely by reference to the text.
-Many founders were explicitly concerned with the Constitution persisting indefinitely (while not a signatory, Thomas Jefferson took this view).
-The Constitution has a number of grammatical and spelling errors (yes, they were errors even in its day). (I don't really have a point for that other than to make that point known).
-Several sections were left with holes so obvious the Founders clearly noticed them but were ok with proceeding anyway (4th Amendment lays out requirements for a warrant, but doesn't actually say when you need to get a warrant. Is it really plausible that the Founders set out warrant requirements but did not intend to require warrants for some searches?). This necessitates going beyond the text of the law to impart meaning to those sections.
-Many sections are patently ambiguous. (Take a look at the general welfare clause. Is the spending clause dependent on the taxing clause, or is it independent? The answer is important, because it changes the meaning).

The point of all of this is not Constitution-bashing. On the contrary, the Constitution is an incredible document, and at least one of the sections above (intentional vagueness) is a testament to its brilliance. The point is rather that the Constitution does not have a simple, easily-ascertainable meaning from the text alone, and that, in many cases, it was never intended to. The more you delve into the case law, the more you realize just how many wrinkles it has. Such a finding is absolutely unavoidable to anyone with a sophisticated understanding of it, and this sentiment is shared by all well-versed scholars, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.

So the take-home message is this: if someone tells you the Constituion is easy, simple, or complete on its face, they clearly don't have even the most basic understanding of what they're talking about.

But life is just so much easier if you can be for (or against) a straw-man, rather than having to attack or defend based on reality. And since we have so much of that on every other issue, why not extend it to the Constitution, if only for consistency?

What a fantastic reply. I wonder if the self contradiction in this reply was intended to mirror the internal contradictions of the document [in which case the writer is a genius in ironic legalism].

In any case I will happily go with it as it is the most convincing argument to blow originalist arguments out of the water with the ease of the U.S.S. Constitution dismasting its adversaries. [Well it is the anniversary of the War of 1812 as well as the eve of July 4, after all.]

Who are you arguing against? Nobody is saying everything in the Constitution is easy to ascertain the meaning of. But some clauses clearly are. "A term of four years" doesn't mean it can be adjusted for longer life expectancies.

What, you mean the founders expected people to debate and decide where to inject emphasis? Or that they understood shit happens and things change? You mean the who debate over right interpretation is a red herring!!? You mean my Staff of Smyting is nothing but a hollow tube?
Landro, guide US!
PS Am I the only one that thinks Roberts always has a look of having that let the cat out by accident look on his face?

BS... USC clearly declares its scope:
"...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...."
The rest must be subordinated and intereprted according to the scope - of the Constitution. Arresting people for growing or smoking pot is an infringement of liberty, universla healthcare follows from general Welfare and so forth.
Only the shrewed will pretend ambiguity and whatnot.

that's a statement of purpose. you'll notice those aren't enumerated powers. one of the way it provides for the general welfare is by prohibiting congress from interfering with the general welfare. not well enough.

It is not a statement of purpose.
It is the set of rules of inference for the interpretation and application of the rest of the text.
To order the goverment to provide general welfare by not providing general welfare would make sense only if the Constitution were written by Ayn Rand or Rush Limbaugh.

The preamble established a Constitution to promote the general welfare. By limiting government powers and securing certain individual rights, among other things.

(If we're imbuing the preamble with agency.)

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

For my part, the real gem in the Roberts decision is the section where he strictly outlines the court's role in allowing congress to pass crappy laws as long as they pass and form of constitutional muster.

I think all this angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff about whether Obamacare is technically constitutional or not misses two big nasty problems.

The first is that for this reform (and I have no idea myself whether it's actually a good one or not) to work, it has to last and form the basis of US health care for years to come, and that means being broadly accepted by all sections of political thought. Unfortunately Obama didn't even seriously try to achieve this; he obviously belongs to the school of thought which regards "consensus" as meaning "Right wing people have to do whatever Left Wing people tell them without comment, discussion or delay". It always surprises left wingers when they discover that the Right is not terribly inclined to go along with that.

The other, much worse, problem is that, increasingly, people are making judgements not on what the Constitution actually says, but what they wish it said, often not the same thing. This is primarily a left-wing thing; left-wing people hate the idea that governments should be legally limited in what they can do. The Left is therefore increasingly inclined, rather than go to all the bother, time, and expense of proposing amendments to the Constitution and
having them ratified in the appropriate fashion, of simply claiming that the Constitution already means whatever they would like it to mean. This approach to life started with the Second Amendment, which is now routinely claimed to mean the exact opposite of what it very plainly says, and is now being expanded also to mean that "regulating commerce" gives the federal government the power to exert absolute control over anything at all that can affect more than one state (and what doesn't) and in any way involves money (and what doesn't that, either). The frightening thing is that some people on the right are beginning to adopt similar attitudes, if only out of self defence.

Let's get it clear; the Constitution sets out the rules of the game. If people start breaking the rules, and in particular if they start winning by breaking the rules, then eventually the rules will go out of the window altogether, in fact if not in name, and then only deceit and force will be worth anything. That's how the Roman Republic fell, two thousand years ago. Is that what people want for the American one tomorrow?

I know you're just trolling and I shouldn't even respond, but the concept of an individual mandate with subsidies to purchase private insurance from exchanges is the core of GOP healthcare thinking in the 90s and was originally promulgated by the Heritage Foundation. The healthcare debate signified many things; none of them were the intransigence of Democrats.

"The other, much worse, problem is that, increasingly, people are making judgements not on what the Constitution actually says, but what they wish it said, often not the same thing."

The Constitution is a very old document whose meanings even its authors did not agree on. Reasonable people can have well-reasoned disagreements about what it means. To suggest that they are making judgments on "what they wish it said" is awfully presumptive and disingenuous.

"This is primarily a left-wing thing; left-wing people hate the idea that governments should be legally limited in what they can do."

As do right-wing people when the issue is presidential Commander-in-Chief powers, obscenity laws, and the 4th Amendment. It's not an issue of "left wants restrictions, right does not," it's "each side wants different restrictions than the other."

"Let's get it clear; the Constitution sets out the rules of the game. If people start breaking the rules"

I disagree with Mr. Dean, I believe you are well-intentioned and not trolling. You're also intelligent, but I think young as well. This reminds me of something I would have written at age 19 (are you 19?). As you experiment with having opinions that people respect, take this piece of advice: start small. Sweeping generalizations are an undergraduate temptation. Left-wing people do not categorically hate the idea of limited government, it's dishonest to blithely use the phrase "what the Constitution actually says," and the US is not the Roman Republic. If we are, then who is Caesar?

Well one thing is true: the left hates democracy and will of the people. Regardless of the outcome of the ruling, history cant be changed:
1. Massive protests everywhere against the health care reform.
2. Opinion polls against it to this day.
3. People using the legal means to stop it, by electing a rep to the MA senate with the specific intention of stopping the supermajority. Then Pelosi ignoring the laws requiring supermajority approval for a law of this size and going through a different process when she saw that it could not be done the legal way.
4. More elections in 2010 and state referendums that resulted in more opposition to the HC law, etc.

The majority of the american people did everything in their power to stop this act of socialist tyranny and couldn't stop it. The only way would be to elect everyone that opposes it, and that is impossible, between gays, illegals, dead people and cartoon characters, Obama will win.

If only these liberals where a bit honest and stop calling themselves liberals. Nothing liberal on the way the govern.

"Reasonable people can have well-reasoned disagreements about what it means."

Sometimes, yes.

"To suggest that they are making judgments on "what they wish it said" is awfully presumptive and disingenuous."

I'm not American. I am an observer from outside, and I'm calling it how I see it. From where I'm sitting, an increasing number of people are trying to get political advantage out of interpreting the Constitution (which, by the way I admire greatly) as bearing meanings which no reasonable person could agree with. I think this is a very bad thing.

"The frightening thing is that some people on the right are beginning to adopt similar attitudes, if only out of self defence."

In response to various comments, can I draw people's attention to this sentence in my original.

I do believe the problem is primarily on the Left, but the truly frightening prospect is of BOTH sides essentially abandoning Constitutionalism. That's where the Romans went wrong. Don't do it, people. The US has a great Constitution, one of the world's greatest documents. Stick with it even when you don't like it.

Perhaps not very young but old and steeped in TEA [if not something a bit stronger]. So, of course, Caesar would be
Baracchus Obamius Augustus, Imperator Omnia Communistii et Socialistii [have a heart with the linguistic criticism, Latin class was a long time ago].